In order to be an actual force for social good, theatre needs fundamental evolution. To this end, the Copenhagen Interpretation seeks to broaden the accessibility of theatre, and the agency of those who engage with theatre. Where we have sought to innovate the process of theatre-making, we have also sought to re-examine the gathering and evaluation of evidence of individual and social impact.
The majority of official industry data captured around theatre concerns levels of attendance or participation, revenue, and number of performances.
None of these things say anything about the individual experience people have had, nor the personal impact of that experience, or the overall impact theatre more widely has on society. That data isn’t typically sought by the industry itself, not least because it can be challenging to capture.
The audience’s experience of theatre is directed and repressed by the architecture of non-participatory theatre. This can be equally true in theatre which presents itself as immersive or participatory.
There is no opportunity within the non-participatory experience itself for anyone to respond to it, or reflect upon it, until after it is over. Neither response nor reflection are considered to be core aspects of the experience, making data collection additionally challenging because after the play is over, data collection is reliant solely upon the audience’s inclination towards supporting research.
Academics have explored participation in theatre, from regarding traditionally passive engagement as active, to examining fully participatory theatre and gaming, and everything in between.
The Copenhagen Interpretation has some brilliant collaborators in those fields, whose research is qualitative and very focused on the individual experience of theatre. We have always stitched the gathering of data and response into the experience itself as best we can, and made it as engaging as possible.
But even gathering the most qualitative data in the most fun ways, right in the heart of the experience, has still felt like a request made of participants: that they support the study of the process in which they are engaged, by contributing to research that will lead others to understand that process, or for the future development of that process. It’s always felt like more of an ask and less of a fair exchange, not least because the data analysis often happens privately, after the event.
Next week, I’ll post about how we have ‘Copenhagened’ data gathering and evaluation.
Click here for the first post in this series: Barriers to Theatre
Click here for the previous post: Evaluation
Thanks for joining me on Substack. Subscribing is free, but you can buy me a coffee here if you like. You can also follow my work via The Copenhagen Interpreters’ group on Facebook, and BlueSky / Mastodon / Threads / Instagram / Linktree.